President Trump Fires James Comey

originally posted by: Willtell
What’s disgusting is the blatant hypocrisy of the Trump supporters and the GOP who would have conniption fits if Obama fired Comey when he was
investigating Hillary.

There would have been calls for impeachment and there would likely be an impeachment

Your hypocrisy is exposed

False. The reason most of us aren't upset is because most of us understand the firing had zero impact on the investigation at all. The acting Director
confirmed this when asked that by Congress the other day. It doesn't require any partisan leanings at all, it merely requires you acknowledge Comey
wasn't single-handedly doing the investigation.

It doesn't matter whether the firing has any impact what matters is Trump's intent.

People who defend Trump would be going crazy if Obama did what he did, that's a fact, and you and everybody else knows it.

It actually matters quite a bit whether the firing has impact because if it has no impact it's hard to make the case his intent was to derail the
investigation. It's a baseless conspiracy theory, no more. You can make all the predictions you want about what if Obama did it, doesn't change the
fact liberals craze over it is completely unwarranted.

So it goes beyond who gets press access. This is about the idea of putting in a defacto political party news outfit into the WH. Pravda on the
Potomac. OTOH it may only reflect The Donald's need for entertainment/media "ratings", and he hasn't thought through putting FOX in the WH.

Sigh... yes, choose to or don't have time, not even for listening via radio. My late fil listened to only one source (FOX) and went to his grave a
couple years ago believing Obama was a Kenyan Marxist Muslim. God, I miss William F. Buckley, Jr.!

Your point would look a lot sharper if Trump's press secretary was going to become a Fox host instead of the other way around. Not to mention the host
in question hosts an opinion show, she's not an anchor. It's much ado about nothing, and it's still only a rumor at that, hasn't been confirmed. There
are plenty of far left hosts on liberal networks. Rachel Maddow, anyone?

I addressed this earlier in the thread. He talked to numerous advisors about firing Comey. Even if you subscribed to the notion Trump was too dumb to
realize firing Comey wouldn't help, one of his advisors would know this. And the new Director simply can't derail the investigation. There are dozens
of agents working on it. If they were ordered to bungle it, that's not a lawful order, they don't have to follow it and would just report it to the IG
or leak it to the press. No matter how you spin it, it's a baseless conspiracy theory. Save your ire for when he does something legitimately wrong.
You guys are using up all your credibility crying wolf on every stupid thing that doesn't matter.

That's why I keep saying it's not a partisan issue, but a CORRUPTION issue. Everyone who is opposing the Comey firing, in my mind right now, is
corrupt and trying to hide something and should be investigated... something real, not a fantasy charge.

originally posted by: face23785
doesn't change the fact liberals craze over it is completely unwarranted.

Except, Liberals aren't the only ones concerned with the timing and the why's of his firing. If it were only a liberal raised issue, then one can
suspect their motives....buttttttt, it isn't.

It's almost exclusively a liberal issue. The few Republicans that the media have been able to quote are the usual suspects with just a couple of
exceptions. Certainly the push for the mythical (and non existent) option of a special prosecutor is coming form liberal politicians who either do
not understand how things work in their own domain or are purposely misleading the American people to score political points.

That's why I keep saying it's not a partisan issue, but a CORRUPTION issue. Everyone who is opposing the Comey firing, in my mind right now, is
corrupt and trying to hide something and should be investigated... something real, not a fantasy charge.

TheRedneck

To which I couldn't agree more with one exception...the man himself. I do not believe he is corrupt, and I oppose the time and way in which he was
fired. Apart from the Hillary recommendation and the current barrage surrounding his firing, what are your reasons for suspecting he is and how much
do you know about him? Jim Comey, as far as I know, has always been a stand-up guy and the Hillary email debacle was no different to me. He made an
off the cuff statement about why no reasonable prosecutor would find sufficient evidence to litigate and he somehow becomes corrupt (along with all
who oppose it, and I know how much you dislike being lumped into a group well I do too)?

I guess what I'm driving at is what else has he done to inflame how you feel about him?

originally posted by: face23785
doesn't change the fact liberals craze over it is completely unwarranted.

Except, Liberals aren't the only ones concerned with the timing and the why's of his firing. If it were only a liberal raised issue, then one can
suspect their motives....buttttttt, it isn't.

It's almost exclusively a liberal issue. The few Republicans that the media have been able to quote are the usual suspects with just a couple of
exceptions. Certainly the push for the mythical (and non existent) option of a special prosecutor is coming form liberal politicians who either do
not understand how things work in their own domain or are purposely misleading the American people to score political points.

Couldn't have said it better myself. There's always a few on the other side of the aisle that call any given issue "a concern". That really doesn't
mean much. There's a handful of liberals who are saying it's no big deal. Are the liberals here gonna take them at face value?

I live in northeast PA. It's not exactly a bastion of conservatism. Most of the people I know are registered Democrats. This county almost always
votes blue in the general. It went red in '16. They're not bigots. Most of them voted for Obama in '08. I even know one who voted for Clinton in the
primary then turned around and voted Trump in the general. What's been happening is the lunacy from the far left is becoming more and more embraced by
the mainstream Democratic Party. That might play well in the liberal echo chambers like DC, NYC, etc but in the rest of America average people see
right through nonsense like pushing this story as Trump trying to influence the investigation. They're just not that dumb, they don't fall for it.
Independents are turned off by it too. And as I keep pointing out, if something legit corrupt happens nobody is gonna believe the Dem leaders
screaming at the top of their lungs over it because they've cried wolf on so many obviously bogus issues like this.

As much as you don't want to admit it the Hillary recommendation is overwhelming evidence that he's corrupt. Nobody who has been trained to handle
classified information thinks what she did was legal. A few Dem talking heads that have clearances claim it's legal of course, what do you expect them
to say? If you talk to regular people that have clearances they'll all be like "Are you kidding? Of course she should've been charged. It's a slam
dunk." Comey is well aware of the laws in that area, the only way he could recommend no charges is if he ignored them.

When I say corruption, I do not mean it to be aimed at Comey exclusively. More, I mean it to be named at Hillary, Pelosi, and a host of other DC
denizens. I have followed Hillary since Bill got the Presidency in 1992; Pelosi on and off almost as long.

Hillary Clinton, if not corrupt to the bone, has got to be the unluckiest person alive... in fact, I would say with that much bad luck, she wouldn't
be alive in a causal universe. She has been at the heart of scandal after scandal: Vince Foster, the cache of FBI records discovered in the White
House, insider trading, selling secrets for campaign contributions, the Clinton Foundation money laundering, and a list of other offenses far, far too
long to list in one post. Yet, to date, no charges have stuck, and in fact very few if any have been levied against her.

Nancy Pelosi has been caught giving lucrative government deals to friends and relatives, along with some insider trading herself to name a few
examples. Again, she seems immune to prosecution.

Just as those allegations are only examples of a much longer list, so too those two people are examples of a much longer list. Someone has been
protecting these people from prosecution, effectively establishing the politicians as a ruling class to whom the laws do not apply. I consider that
heinously wrong.

To be honest, I had never heard of Jim Comey until the Hillary investigation. All of my suspicion comes from that debacle forward. But his actions
during the speech in which he recommended not prosecuting Clinton, again, were illogical and improper. He as much as said that only Hillary Clinton
could expect such treatment, and anyone else in a similar situation would be subject to the full force of the law. That was my tip-off as to who was
protecting the elite in DC: the leadership of the FBI. Comey is simply the latest incarnation of that leadership; the coverups had to begin long
before he got involved.

That means yes, I believe Comey is guilty of corruption in that I believe he was covering for Clinton. But Comey doesn't interest me nearly as much as
those he was covering up for. The reason I am glad he was fired is that we can hopefully get a fresh look into the FBI from, if not an unbiased
source, one with a different bias. I am watching the short list of replacements very closely; some on there bother me, and others seem like they might
make a good candidate. My pick is not there: Condoleeza Rice.

I know something about those in the DoJ this time around. I know Jeff Sessions well. He is as big a law-and-order guy as anyone could hope for.
Sessions singlehandedly broke up the KKK in Alabama back when it had unofficial support from within the state government itself, by aggressively
targeting the Grand Wizards for prosecution and jailing them. He is quiet-spoken, but blunt, and when he says something, it is usually solid enough to
bank on. And when it comes to prosecution, he is absolutely fearless and unstoppable.

I do not know Rosenstein, but I know he reports to Sessions. The new FBI director will report to Rosenstein, as Comey did. Thus, we actually have a
shot at seeing action come out of anything that had been brushed aside in the past. That would include anything Trump has done to warrant an
investigation... Sessions will not back off just because Trump is in the cross-hairs. He never has.

So far as Comey goes... Trump has every right to implement his own team in department positions. He wanted Comey gone; Comey is gone. Done. No
explanation needed. The uproar over Trump doing absolutely nothing that hasn't been done by every other President since George Washington, however, is
telling to my ears. The DC inhabitants do not want the FBI exposed. Why?

There is no active investigation on Donald Trump at this time; verified by several individuals in a position to know. There has been no evidence put
forth that indicates a possible Trump-Russia collusion. There has been no activities toward the Russian government that would indicate collusion or
favoritism; indeed, the bombing of Syria could easily be seen as the opposite of such. The only investigation concerning Russia is not a criminal, but
a procedural investigation that cannot by definition produce criminal charges. That investigation had nothing whatsoever to do with Comey in any case;
Comey was only the Director, not an investigator.

But despite all this, someone will respond within the next couple of hours with something to the effect of "But Trump's in bed with Putin." So, just
for them (not for you; I appreciate your tone), to make them feel as frustrated as I do, I leave this link:

Trump is not stupid. Its easy to deduce why he fired Comey. He saw that when Comey declared Hillary was not going to be indicted, he nevertheless
besmirched her character something fierce with an addendum of character assassination.

As well, he likely lost her the election , Trump realizes, with the 11 day before the election announcement that she was still being investigated in
the Weiner scandal emails.

Trump realizes Comey could have had a field day with the Trump enquiry since even if he exonerated him he may have done to him the same thing he did
to Hillary, and Trump has some skeletons rattling all over the place.

When I say corruption, I do not mean it to be aimed at Comey exclusively. More, I mean it to be named at Hillary, Pelosi, and a host of other DC
denizens. I have followed Hillary since Bill got the Presidency in 1992; Pelosi on and off almost as long.

You know, it's funny just how much I think Hillary is corrupt. I wouldn't trust her as far as Trump could throw her. Pelosi too, that chicks (loosely
described) has to go....she is toxic too. Nah Hillary isn't unlucky, she is outright corrupt, I think we all know that much.

To be honest, I had never heard of Jim Comey until the Hillary investigation. All of my suspicion comes from that debacle forward. But his actions
during the speech in which he recommended not prosecuting Clinton, again, were illogical and improper. He as much as said that only Hillary Clinton
could expect such treatment, and anyone else in a similar situation would be subject to the full force of the law. That was my tip-off as to who
was protecting the elite in DC: the leadership of the FBI. Comey is simply the latest incarnation of that leadership; the coverups had to begin long
before he got involved.

Were those his exact words? Or are you paraphrasing? My reason for asking is that were it his exact words it is altogether possible that the words are
being taken out of context. What I mean is, "only Hillary Clinton could expect such treatment", couldhave equally meant "pffft....why should SHE get
special treatment, anyone else would be facing the full weight of the law, but only Hillary Clinton could expect such treatment"....

Personally I would have found it a bit more incriminating had he said "only Hillary Clinton should expect such treatment". I'm not saying I'm
correct about this, but I cant begin to tell you the times ive witnessed peoples lives being ruined because of something equally as unresolved within
context and how incredibly petty it actually turned out to be.

That means yes, I believe Comey is guilty of corruption in that I believe he was covering for Clinton. But Comey doesn't interest me nearly as much as
those he was covering up for. The reason I am glad he was fired is that we can hopefully get a fresh look into the FBI from, if not an unbiased
source, one with a different bias. I am watching the short list of replacements very closely; some on there bother me, and others seem like they might
make a good candidate. My pick is not there: Condoleeza Rice.

And, he could well be, I still cant bring myself to accept it just yet. Like you, I actually liked Condoleeza Rice quite a bit...still do. (not in a
stalker kinda way in case any alphabets are watching)

So far as Comey goes... Trump has every right to implement his own team in department positions. He wanted Comey gone; Comey is gone. Done. No
explanation needed.

Of course he does.

The uproar over Trump doing absolutely nothing that hasn't been done by every other President since George Washington, however, is telling to my
ears. The DC inhabitants do not want the FBI exposed. Why?

Well, unless I'm mistaken, I think the last time an FBI director was fired was Bill Sessions in '93. I understand what you mean about cabinet turnover
and the like, that's been going on since the beginning of time, but firing the FBI director? That's pretty rare.

indeed, the bombing of Syria could easily be seen as the opposite of such.

Here's where the conspiracy theorist in me comes out. I know personally, if I was trying to deflect attention away from myself on a topic, I would
certainly make it appear as though the exact opposite of what garnered that attention is what made headlines. Sort of an alibi after the fact.....
"now why would I piss Russia off if I were in bed with them, duhhhhhhh"...and then, it gets parroted.

But despite all this, someone will respond within the next couple of hours with something to the effect of "But Trump's in bed with Putin." So, just
for them (not for you; I appreciate your tone), to make them feel as frustrated as I do, I leave this link:

You're probably right on that account. You know I learned a lot from the 20 years I spent in the military, among some of the most important lessons I
learned was to know my enemy...and it wasn't always the guy pointing a gun in my face.

I'm gonna end on a particular note (because I was there and very much appreciated that environment):

To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the
contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.

For some reason he didn't mention criminal prosecution, only security or administrative sanctions.

At no point in history has someone of such a level in government (remember, all this took place while Hillary was Secretary of State) ever mishandeled
classified information in such a way and with such disregard for the tenets of handling of such information.

But because so much time had passed there weren't any administrative sanctions that could be applied to her and technically the president of the
united states doesn't require a security clearance, they're granted access to the info just because.

So revoking her clearance (which really should be done, but won't be, again, just because Secretaries of State are granted clearance for life in case
they ever need to be consulted about happenings while they were in office) wouldn't have meant anything.

Most people stop here, but he goes on:

As a result, although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like this, we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges
are appropriate in this case.

Loretta Lynch had already stated publicly that she would accept whatever recommendation the FBI made in regarss to the case, thus abdicating the
responsibility for the decision. (something about an airplane meeting goes in here somwhere)

The FBI has no business stating a no prosecution stance. Their job is to gather evidence and present that evidence to the DoJ, it is only then
determined as to whether or not to prosecute by the lawyers who are the ones trained to understand when a case can be made from the evidence presented
to them by law enforcement.

Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified
information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified
information.

Extremely careless=grossly negligent

Oh, and he says, "Secretary Clinton or her collegues...they were..." so it's not just Hillary that was given a pass, it was the entire apartus
or anyone who was involved; 7 immunity deals were handed out, with one of those to a foreign national.

All because...Clinton.

Where does Comey say this?

Here:

this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary,

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.